Neither attacked nor defended abortion. I call it a smoke screen because anti-abortionists willingly vote for politicians who have been bought and sold by the Military Industrial Complex
.
I'd vote where I could save the most lives.
-1.36 million died in iraq in 6 years. ANTIWAR.COM claims (Now thats probably as inflated a number as your going to get given the source.)
-roughly 1.2 million die each year in US abortion clinics alone
Besides its just business as usual with Obama except he's promised to spend more tax payer funds to kill more in abortions in other countries. He's also trying his hardest to eliminate any and all restriction on the practice.
Quote:
They vote for them because they supposedly oppose abortion even though those same politicians cheerfully promote the slaughter of living women and children.
Don't ever tell an expectant mother that the child in her womb isn't living.
Quote:
As to abortion I firmly believe that any changes in laws should be put to a referendum. As women would suffer much greater impact than men from such changes, only women could vote. If you can get 75% of the nations women to agree with a particular change in the law then it could be enacted but only as presented in the referendum. Further a second confirming referendum should be held during the next general election as a safety valve.
I'd agree if the unborn children being killed had a vote as well to determine their fate.
ah. The righteous moral screaming lunatic right, that wants EVERYBODY, to live by their rules, their bible, and if anyone dares have different beliefs by golly they'll get a rifle and blow that abortion doctor's head off. Don't dare tell them different, or you might get shot too. They're unstoppable, and it doesn't occur to them that perhaps people. the majority of people, simply aren't interested in their beliefs, no matter how right, those people think they are.
.
I'd agree if the unborn children being killed had a vote as well to determine their fate.
Would you agree that a parasite ought to have a say in wether someone has it removed?
An embryo may be a genetically distinct entity, but it is wholly dependent on the maternal metabolism for its support. If the mother chooses to provide this support, that's great. But if the mother chooses to withhold this support, the embryo is out of luck.
Just like someone in need of a blood transfusion cannot compel another to provide the needed blood, the rights of the unborn do not trump the rights of the mother. By carrying a pregnancy to term a woman chooses to provide physiological support for another, at considerable risk to herself. While we can admire and encourage that choice, we cannot compel it.
Would you agree that a parasite ought to have a say in wether someone has it removed?
An embryo may be a genetically distinct entity, but it is wholly dependent on the maternal metabolism for its support. If the mother chooses to provide this support, that's great. But if the mother chooses to withhold this support, the embryo is out of luck.
Just like someone in need of a blood transfusion cannot compel another to provide the needed blood, the rights of the unborn do not trump the rights of the mother. By carrying a pregnancy to term a woman chooses to provide physiological support for another, at considerable risk to herself. While we can admire and encourage that choice, we cannot compel it.
This is an example of that sad simplification Chesterton spoke of.
You're basically arguing an unborn child is no more, no less deserving of life than a common tape worm?
By that logic, why not have open season on infants up to 2 or 3 years old. The child continues being a parasite on the mother for years after birth since without her support it would die in days. The only difference is location.
Edit:
Seems like some intellectual has already taken this argument to its next logical conclusion.
Quote:
On Sunday, November 2 1997, the New York Times carried an article by Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at the august Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Pinker seriously suggests infanticide as a legal practice.
Pinker argues as follows: Killing a newborn infant should not be penalized as harshly as killing an older child. "To a biologist, birth is as arbitrary a milestone as any other," Pinker says. Pinker says babies aren't real people because they don't have "an ability to reflect upon (themselves) as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die. And there's the rub: Our immature neonates don't possess these traits any more than mice do."
By that logic, why not have open season on infants up to 2 or 3 years old. The child continues being a parasite on the mother for years after birth since without her support it would die in days. The only difference is location.
And oh what a difference location makes. Once the organism is extrauterine, the options of state protection, foster homes and adoption become viable. There's still not much one can do about parents that don't take good care of their children apart from taking the children away. That's not an option with regard to embryos.
But this argument effectively boils down to one's sovereignty over one's own body. If you support legislation outlawing abortion, you are effectively saying that the state has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, and that it is acceptable to force certain individuals to make physical sacrifices for the benefit of others.
While I would very much like to live in a world where no abortions ever occurred, I cannot accept that the state should be allowed to dictate what individuals do with their own bodies or who has to make what sacrifices for who.
So viability in such fashion that the state could protect it creates the dividing line?
To the extent that we have to have a dividing line and can't recognize the continuum of development, yes, the possibility of the state or others taking on the care of the unwanted child makes its death unnecessary and therefore unjustifiable.
To the extent that we have to have a dividing line and can't recognize the continuum of development, yes, the possibility of the state or others taking on the care of the unwanted child makes its death unnecessary and therefore unjustifiable.
Enter the population problem.... I don't say this lightly or glibbly. Sooner or later, there will be a global conference on how to address the problem of population and the outcomes won't be pretty.
__________________
"not all those who wander are lost….." j.r.r. tolkien
the religious right generally turns to the ridiculous to support their beliefs. When the huge outcry over same sex marriages, I saw many predict we would allow humans to marry their pets. They'll gladly provide links and examples to support this.
Now we'll hear how young people, will be allowed to be killed.
They can't support their beliefs with logical thought, so they'll turn to utter lunacy, to enforce their beliefs.
I don't have any problem, with anyone, or group, who decides they believe in something, and they want to adhere to their beliefs. However, I think there is a real severe problem, that should be dealt with strictly, when a group of people believe they should be able to enforce their beliefs on others, and actually use terror to do so. Amazingly enough, usually these groups, who have used terror tactics (shooting abortion doctors), will be the first up to yell and scream about other, 'terrorists'.
Linear Mode
